Talk:States' rights

Response to AugustO and Wschact's Deletion of Second Amendment and other Categories and Links to Conservative States' Rights Organization

Dear AO and now-7 day banned Wschact. The material you keep deleting is very much related to this topic and Categories I added. I seems both you and Wsschact are not big advocates of the Second Amendment.

For any conservative or libertarian gun enthusiast or American patriot/veteran or prepper, the issue of states' rights is inextricably bound up with the Tenth Amendment and Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment Center. By ignoring the Tenth Amendment States' rights by putting the Commerce Clause above the Tenth Amendment, the progressive police state nanny statists such as Eric Holder/Obama and the RINOs emasculate the unalienable rights of the Second Amendment to self-defense, home security and most importantly, in the thinking of the wise conservative Founding Fathers, to act a a last defense against a Federalized tyranny of big government like they had with dear King George and the Brits.

I re-assert the conservative point of view as evidenced by Montana's courageous stand in the face of federal government hegemony/tyranny: MSSA v. Holder. The same bravery was asserted by Kansas and Missouri.

States' rights is one of the key concerns for a conservative and a libertarian. Neither of these patriots wants big federal government control over the states. Thus, a conservative going to the Category:Conservatism would be happy to find an article in that category related to one of his/her key concerns. The same goes for Category:Libertarianism. TheAmericanRedoubt 11:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)

It is unnecessary - and distracting - to include one of these super-categories, too - so, I'll delete Category:Conservatism and Category:Libertarianism.

--AugustO 10:19, 13 January 2015 (EST)

This endless messing with TheAmericanRedoubts category tags is frivolous. About less than 1% of web page visitors use the category tags I am guessing. Better to create content for people rather than create tempests in teapots. Conservative 10:28, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I disagree: If you wish to be taken seriously, you should present your content in a professional manner. This means at a wiki that the categories are helpful for the reader, and that red links are to be avoided. --AugustO 10:35, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages#Categories: "Assign articles to one or more categories by placing [[Category:name]] at the very bottom of the article page. If an article is placed in a subcategory, do not also place it into the main category. (By definition, every article could be relevant to every category on the tree between the subcategory and Category:Everything, so do not list any of the broader categories.)" --AugustO 11:30, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I don't like red links and I think they are visually unappealing. Generally speaking, I also don't like articles with too many links in them so the article appears to be all links.

In addition, new editors should be given some slack and hounding is detrimental - especially when some of the hounding is unwarranted. Conservative 15:52, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I don't like red links and I think they are visually unappealing. I think so, too.
Too many internal links look like a clumsy attempt of Search Machine Optimization - an impression we should try to avoid.
Hounding is detrimental - but giving and taking advice shouldn't be frowned upon.

--AugustO 01:44, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Response to AugustO and Wschact's Deletion of Second Amendment and other Categories and Links to Conservative States' Rights Organization

See Also

Responses by Others

Conservapedia